dismissed H-1B Case: Unknown

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 25281655 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 24, 2023 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary under the H-lB nonimrnigrant classification for specialty 
occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. 
§ l 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) . The H-lB program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified 
foreign worker in a position that requires both: (a) the theoretical and practical application of a body 
of highly specialized knowledge; and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific 
specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position . 
The Texas Service Center Director denied the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker 
(petition), concluding that due to inconsistencies within the record, the Petitioner did not establish the 
Beneficiary's work location was covered by a U.S. Department of Labor certified ETA Form 9035 & 
9035E, Labor Condition Application for Nonimmigrant Workers (LCA). The matter is now before us 
on appeal. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of 
the evidence. Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We 
review the questions in this matter de novo. Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 
2015). Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
The Petitioner filed the petition in February 2022. At that time, it indicated the Beneficiary 's work 
location was onl I Texas. This was reflected on both the LCA and the 
petition. 1 The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) in part seeking clarification regarding the 
Beneficiary's work location. In response to the RFE, the Petitioner stated it was "a home-based 
business where it[]s employees always provide services at third party client sites .... " The Director 
noted this statement was not consistent with the information on the LCA and the petition, and they 
concluded it cast overall doubt about the work location, which resulted in an adverse decision on this 
petition. 
1 On the LCA, the Petitioner listed the !address as the place of employment in Section F.a.4. and it did 
not offer any other addresses. Also on the LCA in Section F.a.2., the Petitioner checked the "No" box for the statement: 
Indicate whether the worker(s) subject to this LCA will be placed with a secondary entity at this place of employment. On 
the petition, the Petitioner also failed to indicate the Beneficiary would work offsite. Under Part 5.5., they checked the 
"No" box to the question of whether the Beneficiary would work offsite at another company or organization 's location. 
And on the H- IB and H- IB 1 Data Collection and Filing Fee Exemption Supplement, under Section 4.1. the Petitioner 
checked the "No" box for the question: The beneficiary of this petition will be assigned to work at an off-site location for 
all or part of the period for which H- lB classification sought. 
On appeal, the Petitioner now indicates they will not place this Beneficiary at a secondary entity, but 
instead will place her at a new location they purchased in April 2022. This information was not 
reflected in the Petitioner's claims when they filed the petition, nor did they mention this in their May 
2022 response to the Director's RFE. This constitutes a material change and a petitioner may not 
make such alterations to a petition that has already been filed in an effort to make an apparently 
deficient petition conform to .S. Citizenship and Immigration Services requirements. See Matter of 
Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). Additionally, a filing party must establish 
they are eligible for the requested benefit at the time of filing the application or petition. 8 C.F .R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l). See also Ahmed v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 579, 582 (6th Cir. 2008). All required forms 
must be properly completed and filed with any initial evidence required by applicable regulations and 
the form instructions. Id. 
Finally, the Petitioner has provided inconsistent information that has an adverse impact on the veracity 
their claims in this petition and they have not resolved this discordant information with adequate 
evidence revealing which assertions are the truth. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988) 
(noting it is a petitioner's responsibility to resolve inconsistencies in the record through independent and 
objective evidence). 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered an independent and 
alternative basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is a petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2